A federal judge has blocked a new Illinois law that allows the state to penalize anti-abortion counseling centers if they use deception to interfere with patients seeking the procedure.

  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I understand the technicalities.

    I am simply pointing out that a preliminary injunction is not issued by routine in cases like this. Therefore, it is newsworthy rather than “clickbait”.

    Furthermore, it strongly indicates how the case will ultimately be decided. So if you agree with the injunction, then you should agree with the plaintiffs in this case. If you disagree with the plaintiffs, then you have good reason to disagree with the injunction. Therefore, some people are rightfully very concerned about this news.

    That is all. I am not interested in arguing the merits, either.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article is clickbaity by being vague, not because the subject is not newsworthy.

      And a preliminary injunction is routine if strict scrutiny should be applied. I agree that it probably should be applied based on the general characteristics of the law, and yeah the law will probably fall short of that standard and as such it ought to be struck down, but that does not in any way imply that I agree with the plaintiffs speech.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say you agreed with the plaintiff’s speech, I said you agreed with the plaintiffs. Namely, that the law should be struck down.

        By arguing that the law ought to be struck down, you are arguing the merits despite your protest earlier. In which case, there are plenty of restrictions on commercial speech that are in keeping with the First Amendment. For example, Elon Musk was sanctioned because of his speech regarding Tesla stock.

        The First Amendment is not some get-out-of-jail card that allows commercial entities to say whatever they want, particularly if they are being deceptive. And strict scrutiny does not apply to commercial speech. That’s why there is an entire federal agency, the FTC, whose mission includes regulation of commercial speech.

        If you think these plaintiffs should be allowed to decieve potential clients because of the 1st Amendment that’s your prerogative, but plenty of legal scholars would disagree.

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          By arguing that the law ought to be struck down

          I’m saying it probably falls short of the standard and if so it ought to be struck down. If you can’t accept that I’m being sincere when I say that’s my whole fucking point, then I don’t know what else to say.

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t doubt your sincerity. But I think your legal analysis is wrong.

            The correct standard here is not strict scrutiny, it is intermediate scrutiny. This is a much more permissive standard that applies to all commercial speech. And it allows restrictions on what one can say, in order to prevent deceptive practices like those I described.

            The Supreme Court described their approach to commercial speech in 1980 (my emphasis):

            At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.

            The Illinois law bans deceptive speech by certain companies trying to gain clients, and therefore it does not violate the First Amendment.

            • Melllvar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Actually, it’s your legal analysis that is wrong. Because your analysis begs the very question that the court is trying to answer: is their speech protected?

              • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The answer is right in the quote by the Supreme Court. Commercial speech is not protected if it’s misleading. So by definition, a law that bans deceptive speech is constitutional.

                In the case of these plaintiffs, maybe their speech is deceptive and maybe it isn’t. That’s up to a jury to determine. But either way, the law stands.

                In other words, it’s entirely possible that their speech is not deceptive but someone else’s is deceptive. The law would only apply to the latter.